DACA recipients fight for in-state tuition

People gather outside the Arizona Supreme Court in Phoenix during the hearing over in-state tuition for "dreamers" on April 2, 2018. Nick Oza/The Republic

DACA recipients fight for in-state tuition

People gather outside the Arizona Supreme Court in Phoenix during the hearing over in-state tuition for "dreamers" on April 2, 2018.
Nick Oza/The Republic

"Dreamer" Belen Sisa speaks during the rally outside the Arizona Supreme Court in Phoenix during the hearing over dreamers' in-state tuition on April 2, 2018. Nick Oza/The Republic

DACA recipients fight for in-state tuition

"Dreamer" Belen Sisa speaks during the rally outside the Arizona Supreme Court in Phoenix during the hearing over dreamers' in-state tuition on April 2, 2018.
Nick Oza/The Republic

"Dreamer" Belen Sisa speaks during the rally outside the Arizona Supreme Court in Phoenix during the hearing over dreamers' in-state tuition on April 2, 2018. Nick Oza/The Republic

DACA recipients fight for in-state tuition

"Dreamer" Belen Sisa speaks during the rally outside the Arizona Supreme Court in Phoenix during the hearing over dreamers' in-state tuition on April 2, 2018.
Nick Oza/The Republic

Jocelyn Lopez, a biological science student at ASU, speaks during the rally outside the Arizona Supreme Court in Phoenix during the hearing over dreamers' in-state tuition on April 2, 2018. Nick Oza/The Republic

DACA recipients fight for in-state tuition

Jocelyn Lopez, a biological science student at ASU, speaks during the rally outside the Arizona Supreme Court in Phoenix during the hearing over dreamers' in-state tuition on April 2, 2018.
Nick Oza/The Republic

"Dreamers" gather outside the Arizona Supreme Court in Phoenix during the hearing over dreamers' in-state tuition on April 2, 2018. Nick Oza/The Republic

DACA recipients fight for in-state tuition

"Dreamers" gather outside the Arizona Supreme Court in Phoenix during the hearing over dreamers' in-state tuition on April 2, 2018.
Nick Oza/The Republic

"Dreamer" Belen Sisa speaks during the rally outside the Arizona Supreme Court in Phoenix during the hearing over dreamers' in-state tuition on April 2, 2018. Nick Oza/The Republic

DACA recipients fight for in-state tuition

"Dreamer" Belen Sisa speaks during the rally outside the Arizona Supreme Court in Phoenix during the hearing over dreamers' in-state tuition on April 2, 2018.
Nick Oza/The Republic

"Dreamer" Belen Sisa speaks during the rally outside the Arizona Supreme Court during the hearing over dreamers' in-state tuition on April 2, 2018. Nick Oza/The Republic

DACA recipients fight for in-state tuition

"Dreamer" Belen Sisa speaks during the rally outside the Arizona Supreme Court during the hearing over dreamers' in-state tuition on April 2, 2018.
Nick Oza/The Republic

Interested in this topic? You may also want to view these photo galleries:

The ruling is, of course, is a disaster for "dreamers," many of whom will be shut out of a college education. (Or maybe not. More on that in a minute.)

It’s also bad for Arizona’s economy, which needs more college graduates, not fewer, if we’re going to attract quality employers.

But if you believe the law matters, it’s the right ruling.

Sickening but right

Sickening, but right.

Voters in 2006 decreed that Arizona residents must have “lawful immigration status” to qualify for the in-state tuition or any financial assistance “subsidized or paid in whole or in part with state monies.”

It was the era of Russell Pearce and Joe Arpaio, when bashing undocumented residents was a statewide sport and no distinctions were made between those who broke the law and those who toddled along beside them, mere babies who had no say in their fate.

In 2013, the Maricopa Community College District began offering in-state tuition to undocumented students who qualified for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Community college officials contended their newfound DACA status afforded them "lawful presence" that made them eligible for subsidized tuition.

Original ruling was doomed

Naturally, the state sued.

A Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled that in-state tuition was legal. Judge Arthur Anderson said the federal government, not the state, decides who is “lawfully present” and the Board of Regents joined the community colleges in offering DACA students the subsidized tuition rate.

But Anderson’s ruling seemed doomed from the start, making Attorney General Mark Brnovich's decision to appeal a no brainer.

Even the Department Homeland Security was careful to say that while DACA students are “lawfully present,” they don’t have “lawful immigration status” – the requirement imposed by Arizona voters.

A three-judge panel of the Arizona Court of Appeals unanimously overturned Anderson’s ruling last June, writing that DACA doesn’t give the students lawful immigration status and thus state law applies.

Now the seven justices of the Supreme Court also have ruled that DACA students don't qualify for in-state tuition. (Disclosure: one those justices is a relative of mine.)

But do they have to pay out-of-state rate?

We haven’t yet seen the Supreme Court’s full ruling, but there's been no suggestion that DACA students must pay the out-of-state rate.

The idea was the brainchild of Regent Jay Heiler, a lawyer and former Republican political operative who now runs a chain of charter schools. He told me at the time that such a plan should pass legal muster and makes sense in a state where the average high school sees only 18.6 percent of its graduates earn a college degree within six years.

"Here we are setting up barriers for a group of kids who by definition are trying to go to college and qualified for admission," he said at the time. "It doesn't make any sense for the state."

When will we fix this mess?

It doesn’t make sense for the state. But then, the 2006 law sticking to kids who did nothing wrong was never about making sense.

1. Will the Regents have to repay the state for this year's in-state tuition subsidy for dreamers, having decided to disregard the Court of Appeals ruling last year?

And far more importantly, 2. When are we going to quit parsing language – "legal presence" v. "lawful status" v. "lawful immigration status" – and come up at long last with a sensible immigration system that works?